National Right to Life and two other major pro-family groups have endorsed Mitt Romney for president, saying that on the issues of abortion and marriage, he stands with them.

National Right to Life's endorsement Thursday (April 12) came two days after Romney's leading challenger for the Republican nomination -- Rick Santorum -- dropped out, making Romney the presumptive nominee. Also endorsing Romney were the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life women for political office, and the National Organization for Marriage, which has led the charge nationwide in protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

In its endorsement, National Right to Life said Romney "has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn." The organization said Romney:

-- opposes Roe v. Wade, having called the 1973 decision a "big mistake."

-- supports the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.

-- backs the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.

"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda. It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win."

The Susan B. Anthony List made similar points and added that Romney has pledged to "appoint only constitutionalist judges to the federal bench" and also to defund Planned Parenthood.

"Women deserve a president who truly respects our views on an issue so central to womanhood," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "A President Romney will be that man. If there was murkiness during the last election over Barack Obama's extreme abortion position, absolute clarity exists now -- and his abortion position is rejected by women young and old."

The National Organization for Marriage, which played key roles in preventing gay "marriage" from being legalized in California and Maine, said Romney was an early signer of the organization's pledge, which meant he was committing to:

-- support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

-- appoint Supreme Court justices and an attorney general "who will apply the original meaning of the Constitution."

-- "vigorously" defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court.

-- establish a presidential commission on religious liberty.

-- advance legislation to allow District of Columbia citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. Gay "marriage" currently is legal in D.C.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said the group was "proud" to endorse Romney.

"President Obama," Brown said, "has declared our nation's marriage laws to be unconstitutional and not only has refused to defend them, his administration is actively working to repeal them in the courts. He's come out against state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And he has appointed leaders of the same-sex 'marriage' movement as national co-chairs of his reelection campaign.

Incredibly, Obama still apparently claims to personally support traditional marriage. With friends like President Obama, the institution of marriage doesn't need enemies."

It is between Romney and Newt Gingrich, a soundly pro-life candidate who also understands the danger and methods of the Islamists - who would seek to install sharia by precedents such as the government forcing Christians (Catholics) to violate their own religion (which Romney did in Massachusetts). Once that precedent is there it’s just a matter of switching the government-established religion from “progressivism” to Islam.

And if we support Romney when we could be supporting Gingrich, we are asking for that very thing to happen.

Romney probably means well, but we all know what paves the road to hell. And those who support Romney in the primary as if we were already in the general will pave the way with good intentions.

I think we are still allowed to defend conservative and pro-life organizations when they are attacked.

National Right-to-Life isn’t God. It’s a human organization, run by flawed humans. It is political, and therefore makes political calculations. I’ve seen the state organizations endorse pro-life democrat incumbents against better pro-life republican challengers, simply because they wanted to encourage pro-life democrats, knowing that a democrat majority was bad for the pro-life movement.

But they are a good group, and they have sound reasons for their endorsements.

But Newt is still in the race, and Santorum isn’t, so Newt is what we have now. And it would have been nice if NRTL had held off endorsing until someone had won, rather than endorsing Romney over Gingrich. Gingrich is clearly pro-life, and has been for longer than Romney.

I wish they had endorsed Santorum earlier because it might have helped him raise money.

Sarah Palin: "I am convinced that Governor Romney, if he is our nominee and if he is elected President, he will know to surround himself with those who inherently know to go right, to err on the side of smaller, smarter government, and that gives me a lot of comfort"

"I am convinced" is a lot stronger than your "she hopes". On the other hand, note she did not say Romney would be conservative, but that he would surround himself with conservatives. Still, she seems a lot more comforted by that thought than many people here are.

Much of what we’re seeing in the way of support from Conservatives to Romney is due to politics. These folks cannot see that this isn’t “politics as usual”. Kansas58 is one of those party apparatchiks and what he has said indicates that BHO2 is being widely recognized as a communist. That’s good, because we are right on the edge civil action, most likely very violent in tone and action.

The Democratic Party has been subverted by communists. I’ve been watching what the Democratic Party is doing here out west, and in my city the party headquarters is co-located with the ILWU union hall.

Leo Gerard, the Canadian communist head of International Steel Workers Union, has been pulling out all the stops to get the U.S. labor bosses lined up in support of BHO2. I’m certain there are plans afoot to sabotage western ports and committ violence in order to spur a declaration of martial law by the White House.

This coming election is all about money and power, and who wields it in the U.S.A. Will it be the Global Social Justice movement, meaning communism led by BHO2? Or will it the elites of Wall Street, the Globalists, led by Romney and the Bush family?

Hitler got about 33% of the vote and then in an Obama like fashion ignored the laws, appointed himself supreme leader, and took over agency by agency. He used race baiting as a political technique and blamed all of Germany’s ills on the Wiemar Republic propped up by the Allies. (That is, blamed Democracy). That sounds a lot more like Obama then Romney. Oh, and he also nationalized a lot heavy industry and even bailed out car companies who in turn became nationalized, to save the country, of course. And Hitler and O also seemed to have a great hatred for Churchill. Curious.

What really shocks me is that some people are surprised by what she said..she has been saying for months that she will support whoever the nominee is..she has been supporting Newt from the beginning but if he does not win she will support whoever that person is. People can agree with that or they don’t have to but what she said tonight isn’t exactly breaking news, in fact it was nothing new. She also said she wants Newt and Ron Paul to both stay in the race so NO she did NOT endorse Romney. Michele Bachmann has said the same thing, she will also support whoever the nominee is so if anyone can accuse Sarah Palin of being a RINO(Which is beyond ridiculous!) then the same can be said for Bachmann
I appreciate you transcribing exactly what she said I apologize for the misquote

That group is the local affiliate of NRL which is nothing but a big money financed tool of the Republican Party insiders (GOP Establishment).

Back in 1988 and 1992 NRL told us to vote for George H. W. Bush 41 who was Pro-Abortion until he became Reagan’s VP and had to toe the Reagan line to get his butt elected.

But when the burden of the presidency was lifted in 1993 I saw Bush 41 with Larry King saying he believed in a “woman’s right to choose” agreeing with his wife Barbara, who had to keep her mouth shut for 12 years when they were in DC.

Then the senior Bushes hushed up while their sons pursued their political destinies.

Only partly blame NRTL. My blame goes go the GOP for ramming this jerkoff thru the primaries and forcing us to support him.
Well, Mitt may get our votes{maybe or maybe not} but he isnt getting much more. No cash, no signs,no workers who are Conservatives.
FUGOP

118
posted on 04/13/2012 4:22:27 AM PDT
by Yorlik803
(better to die on your feet than live on your knees.)

Kansas58: "This is not a hard call...Drew you are absolutely correct!"

Drew68: "It's called 'The Lesser Of Two Evils.'"

butterdezillion: "Mitt Romney is not our nominee. There is not a race between Romney and Obama. If these people really cared about getting a pro-lifer in there they would be galvanizing around Newt Gingrich right now."

Thank you butterdezillion. Couldn't be plainer, yet some people are too dim to grasp it, or too docile to resist.

119
posted on 04/13/2012 4:31:13 AM PDT
by Lady Lucky
(Retro Sark...because you just never know when you'll have needed a sark tag.)

I didn’t think of what you said as a misquote, because you didn’t say it was a quote. I thought it was a reasonable attempt to paraphrase what she said — I just found the exact way she said it interesting.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

122
posted on 04/13/2012 4:46:42 AM PDT
by mo
(If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)

Thanks for the wrap-up, short and sweet (or sour in Romney’s case). Organizations and individuals that foolishly get behind Romney, need to be notified. I for one will be writing to notify them of the true nature of the person they’re endorsing.

123
posted on 04/13/2012 4:57:48 AM PDT
by Lady Lucky
(Retro Sark...because you just never know when you'll have needed a sark tag.)

10 years from now, when many of us are dead or bankrupted or in jail on trumped up political charges, you can all brag about how pure you were in 2012, and how you did not compromise -

I’ll be in jail but it won’t be for trumped up charges or i’ll be dead.
I’ll see America crash and burn before I will vote for a 100% phoney like Romney.
In the most critical time in our recent history we need a reformer..someone who will restore our Republic..someone with solid priciples and who do we get...WILLARD?
Well, either his nomination was rigged(Rove/Fox/GOPe), he bamboozled his way in(91% negative ads), or worse he is what America wants (unlikely/no evidence he is a reformer).
Personally, why anyone would want to live in an America where the people elect a Obama or a Romney to the highest office in the land is beyond me.
What once was a Constitutional Republic is no more and there is no evidence Romney will remedy that situation.

125
posted on 04/13/2012 5:26:21 AM PDT
by Leep
(Enemy of the Statist)

If Romney becomes “our” (gag) candidate I will be arguing that Romney is slime but at least he’s not as slimy as Obama.

But Romney is not our candidate, and as long as I have the choice of somebody who is committed to FREEDOM to the point that he would not even consider forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, I have to support the non-tyrant. Why support a tyrant who modeled for Obama the very way he could take over 1/6th of the economy and force a government doctrine onto a religious denomination against their own beliefs?

The R establishment wants everybody to believe that Romney is a done deal. He’s not, and the only way he will be is if people who should know the difference between a primary and a general election betray the very cause they have collected money to support. If I was a Catholic who gave money to NRLC and Susan B Anthony I’d be burning down their phone lines asking for my money back. These groups are jumping the gun, trying to coronate Romney as the candidate when the race is still on and a genuine pro-lifer is still in it.

I told my husband this morning I don’t think my back has any more surface area to field the stabs from people who claim to be on the side of freedom, life, and the US Constitution.

Newt does not have a prayer.
Newt is, by far, the smartest man in politics and NEWT knows he does not have a prayer.
Newt will have an impact of some type on Delegates and on the Platform issues, and on the national debate on all of the issues.

The Primary is OVER folks.
I don’t like it, but I live in the real world and delusions and fantasy do not help the cause.

A true conversion ALWAYS has some sort of catalyst that triggers it. This may be a dramatic event like Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, or it may be a more drawn-out process where a person begins to question things and their beliefs change over a period of time. However, when a genuine conversion has a occurred, the person can typically explain what has transpired AND the change is obvious to people who have known them before and after.

There are many members of the pro-life movement who were once pro-death and we welcome and embrace them because we can see that, by God's grace, their hearts and minds have changed. These conversions are real and they are obvious.

Mitt Romney has had no such conversion. He was always pro-abortion until he decided to run for president six or so years ago and he realized that he had to say he was pro-life in order to win the GOP nomination. If he had experienced a real change he would talk about it, but he doesn't, he wants people to believe he has always been pro-life and this is a lie.

137
posted on 04/13/2012 7:19:42 AM PDT
by wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)

Again, you are politically incompetentent if you do not accept the expertise of the National Right to Life Committee!

You are forever tainted with a vote for Romney! That blood does NOT wash out, stained forever/eternity! I bet Romney bought them off like he does with everything else. Satan's own little minion - the LYING MITT and now satan has the National RTL movement in his pocket.

Again, you are politically incompetentent if you do not accept the expertise of the National Right to Life Committee!

Their expertise is from the DEVIL! Don't you even attempt to tell me to accept EVIL - EVER!! with your eternally blood stained hands!

You know the second someone endorses the lesser of two evils, theyre immediately labeled RINO.

Well, I'll keep posting here as long as Jim lets me but I refuse to participate in the mass delusion that has overtaken this place. I was for Perry from the beginning but despite being a stalwart conservative with a decade of executive experience and economic success under his belt, he allowed his campaign to implode. From there I tepidly went to the Gingrich camp where he quickly demonstrated what I had suspected, that he wasn't ready for Prime Time either. In retrospect, it appears that Mitt Romney was the only candidate who took the job of running for president seriously.

I'm getting awfully tired of these blue-staters standing on their pedestal and sanctimoniously telling me that they're "too principled" to vote for Romney. That's great if you live in California, a state that will go 60+ percent for Obama with or without your vote! I live in Florida. My vote counts and I will be voting to remove Obama from the White House. My children's future depends on it. At one time I would have thought that removing Obama from the White House would have been a shared goal on this forum but increasingly I am having my doubts.

As someone said the other day, voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Better to abstain.

That sounds like a great bumper sticker. Sorry, but I live in the real world where my children will pay the price of Obama's administration. I will do my best to attempt to mitigate the damage this man will do to their futures.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.